of thepads relative to the top, sealed bottom and sealed sides of the receptacle and not as
a reference to the orientation of the receptacle itself. (Appellants’ Brief, pp. 10-11).
The examiner responded to the appellant s’ argument by noting that the appellants’
origin al disclosure did not place any constraints on how to construe horizontal or that it
had to be interpreted relative to the receptacle. The examiner pointed to Figure 1 of
Jones, which discloses the main container (12) having containers (20) therein horizonta lly
aligned relative to the ground. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 12-13). As such, the examiner
found that the resultant device of Jones, as modified by Burrow, includes pads that a re
aligned horizontally from side to side in the receptacle, as recited in claim 8.
Even if we adopt the appellants’ reading of claim 8 to require the pads to be
oriented horizontally relative to the top, bottom and sides of the receptacle, we still do not
deem this claim to be patentable over the teachings of Jones in view of Burrow and May .
The specification provides no reason why the alignment of the pads in a horizontal
direction, i.e., aligned side-to-side rather than top-to-bottom, is significant to the
invention. The appellants also fail to provide any evidence or arguments in their briefs as
to the significance of the claimed horizontal alignment. Mere changes in shape or
rearrangement of parts of a device are matters of design choice and an i nsufficient basis
for a finding of nonobviousness with a showing of significance of the change. See In re
Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (holding that appellants have
presented no convincing argument that the particular configuration of their container is
significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordina ry
skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces in the
collapsed container of the prior art) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70,
73 (CCPA 1950) (holding that shifting a starting switch of the prior art to a different
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007